well, since the precautions the article lists aren't ones to be taken by the person in danger of being raped but by the person who doesn't want to be seen as a potential rapist in the context of expressing romantic interest in a woman, that seems like a different discussion.

at any rate, my point is that if you do come off as threatening and dangerous the way the article explains, you make it much easier for the woman to think that the state of the world is such that you are a potential rapist, and then minimax reasoning kicks in and she can rationally arrive at the decision to treat you like a potential rapist.

just read through the last few pages properly, and I just want to reitterate: none of this is about codling, or 'infantilising' anyone.

Read these words very carefully, Dennis: yes it is. It totally is. You read the thoughts of this woman and you think, 'Oh, that's reasonable' when really you should be trying to put some sense into her since she's scared every second of her every waking moment. That - is not - normal. Showing her some statistics to how frequent stranger rape occurs may alleviate some of her concerns. However, you people would treat her as a child and do absolutely nothing. Shadowcell even said it was a great article, and seemed to have no problem with the concept. Probably because he's ... ignorant. Not coddling? Think again, my odd-looking Australian friend.

Quote:

This is about saying yes, women have been attacked at night by strangers. Women being attacked by people they know does nothing to change the other statistic.

And? See, the point of (reliable) statistics is that you're supposed to use it as a template. If you ignore them completely, then there would be a case for mass hysteria. Fortunately, most people often...don't. So, women have been attacked at night. Yes. That's true. Strangely enough, I haven't said anything to the contrary. What I have said, however, and this is if you don't selectively read, is that the statistics speak against women having to constantly fear strange men raping them. The keyword here being constantly. That's what I'm arguing. I'm not arguing, nor have I argued, that women are never raped by strangers, but for some reason you've misinterpreted that -- twice. Third time's the charm?

Quote:

I am not saying WOMAN I AM MAN I WILL PROTECT YOU. I am saying 'hey, let me help you feel safe'. There is nothing condescending or codling about that. It's called love, Guest. Truth be told, she is the physically strong one in the relationship, we just feel safer if we are together at night on lonely streets.

It is about helping our lovers/sisters/wives/mothers to feel safe, in a world in which they are not safe.

Honestly, Dennis. What do you think I've been arguing this entire time? Because you seem to keep refuting arguments that I haven't made and it's getting really convoluted and bizarre.

Have I been arguing that you shouldn't be able to walk together at night because it makes you feel safer? Have I said that's coddling? In fact, my argument about putting forth (reliable) information to alleviate the elevated concerns of this woman, has it been anything other than an attempt at sympathy? When I said that you were coddling the fears of this woman, which are insane and I mock, was it derision or caring? Think about it.

++

Mizike wrote:

Guest wrote:

Mizike wrote:

Mizike wrote:

You've already shown that you don't care if girls who aren't old enough to give consent are sexualized.

So I'm a douchebag for thinking that this woman suffers from a delusion, rather than an irrational fear?

Yes, mostly because you're both using the word delusion wrong, and pejoratively.

Come again?

Quote:

According to the clinical definition of delusion, probably. Some of them may suffer from delusions, but it's not a prerequisite for their positions. That's not to say they're right, either, but the difference between being wrong and having a pathological mental disorder is important because it goes to my belief that you're unnecessarily harsh in your assessment of women in general and feminists especially.

So again, Dogen, you're making the claim that I'm "unnecessarily harsh in [my] assessment of women in general and feminists especially," but again without providing any evidence to support that claim? Really? So you're just going to go with your personal opinion? No actual quotes, or anything to work on? Maybe something I said that could have had the unfortunate implication of being derisive towards women in general, and not just the few women I've chided? Which is, what, four or five? Let's count: Dworkin, Watson, Sarkeesian, Starling ... er, what else? I'm probably forgetting someone. But say five to give it a margin of error. That's a total of five (or four) women I've derided (and not just because they're women, but for very specific reasons, in case you get the idea to obfuscate even more) I'm such a fucking misogynist. But if it makes you feel better, I can also note my dislike of male counterparts: PZ Myers, Richard Carrier, Jason Thibeault, Russel Glasser, etc. That's about equal amount of derision, I'd say. There's also nothing indicative that I'm generally derisive of feminists either in my screed, but if you want to believe that, go right ahead. Just remember:

Quote:

de·lu·sion: noun

Definition of DELUSION

1 : the act of deluding : the state of being deluded

2 a : something that is falsely or delusively believed or propagated

b: a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary; also : the abnormal state marked by such beliefs

Quote:

If you're not using the term in the clinical sense, which is totally possible, I have to assume you're using it for its hyperbolic quality... which leads me back to questioning the harsh tone you seem to prefer to use when talking about feminism.

When talking about feminism? There's only so much I've divulged about feminism and it's not much and it's not particularly harsh, or particularly encompassing. You keep saying that I've been harsh to women and feminists in general. Why?

Quote:

Unless you use hyperbole to describe everything with which you disagree. Which would be odd, don't you think? I'll let you tell me: do you use the harshest, most extreme terms possible to describe other things, or just in your descriptions of women?

Neither.

Quote:

You're avoiding my question by restating your position. I asked if you were this militant about other things, and you tell me, again, why you're militant about this thing.

Am I "militant" about the fear of pickles? No.

Quote:

Quote:

For someone who argues facts until he's blue in the face (just in case you're being extra thick today: that's an expression), you sure are quick to accept whatever this woman says. But no, I don't "mock women" as you so glibly assert. I mock this woman. Woman. Singular.

Trust me, it's not glib. I find you generally disheartening. Anyway... you say here that I'm quick to accept whatever this woman says, but in my post two pages ago I agreed (based on data) that women are most likely to be assaulted by someone known to them rather than a stranger, and even offered a counter position of some advocates that disagrees with what she said. So, to what can I attribute this false attribution of my position?

What I've been doing has not been addressing her position much at all, but your reaction to her position.

You find me generally disheartening. Good for you. But how does that help with your assertion that I "mock women"? As for accepting whatever this woman says, you're saying I'm not arguing facts (even though I offered statistics to counteract her hysteria) and then you say, out of the blue, that I "mock women." Great.

Quote:

If this were our first discussion of feminist topics you might have a point, as it is this whole post is one long question asking why you seem to have a pattern of belittling women when they hold feminist perspectives. Like Sarkeesian and Rebecca Watson, off the top of my head. You didn't just disagree with them (which is fine - I'll disagree with someone all day), you called them names and mocked them. I'm curious why you do that, and if you only do it to feminists and their allies, or to everyone.

What?

Just a second. I've made a total of three posts about Sarkeesian and in none of them did I call her a 'name.' Don't believe me: thisisit.

And I made 16 posts regarding Watson who weren't all of them about her specifically, as sometimes I was quoting someone who'd quoted me (where I'd written about her) and sometimes her name was mentioned in passing. No name-calling here, either. Another overly generous embellishment on your part? Admittedly in both cases I was less than charitable, but for a reason - I wasn't mocking them because they were women, and if you think so then maybe -- and it's ridiculous that I have to type this out -- maybe you think less of women in general than I do._________________"Apparently so. But suppose you throw a coin enough times, suppose one day. . . it lands on its edge."
--Amy Hennig, Soul Reaver 2

just read through the last few pages properly, and I just want to reitterate: none of this is about codling, or 'infantilising' anyone.

Read these words very carefully, Dennis: yes it is. It totally is. You read the thoughts of this woman and you think, 'Oh, that's reasonable' when really you should be trying to put some sense into her since she's scared every second of her every waking moment. That - is not - normal. Showing her some statistics to how frequent stranger rape occurs may alleviate some of her concerns. However, you people would treat her as a child and do absolutely nothing. Shadowcell even said it was a great article, and seemed to have no problem with the concept. Probably because he's ... ignorant. Not coddling? Think again, my odd-looking Australian friend.

Wait who the fuck are we talking about? I haven't actually read the article, I just jumped in because everything you say repulses me.

Quote:

Quote:

This is about saying yes, women have been attacked at night by strangers. Women being attacked by people they know does nothing to change the other statistic.

And? See, the point of (reliable) statistics is that you're supposed to use it as a template. If you ignore them completely, then there would be a case for mass hysteria. Fortunately, most people often...don't. So, women have been attacked at night. Yes. That's true. Strangely enough, I haven't said anything to the contrary. What I have said, however, and this is if you don't selectively read, is that the statistics speak against women having to constantly fear strange men raping them. The keyword here being constantly. That's what I'm arguing. I'm not arguing, nor have I argued, that women are never raped by strangers, but for some reason you've misinterpreted that -- twice. Third time's the charm?

Quote:

I am not saying WOMAN I AM MAN I WILL PROTECT YOU. I am saying 'hey, let me help you feel safe'. There is nothing condescending or codling about that. It's called love, Guest. Truth be told, she is the physically strong one in the relationship, we just feel safer if we are together at night on lonely streets.

It is about helping our lovers/sisters/wives/mothers to feel safe, in a world in which they are not safe.

Honestly, Dennis. What do you think I've been arguing this entire time? Because you seem to keep refuting arguments that I haven't made and it's getting really convoluted and bizarre.

Have I been arguing that you shouldn't be able to walk together at night because it makes you feel safer? Have I said that's coddling? In fact, my argument about putting forth (reliable) information to alleviate the elevated concerns of this woman, has it been anything other than an attempt at sympathy? When I said that you were coddling the fears of this woman, which are insane and I mock, was it derision or caring? Think about it.

Hahahaha, yes, very good, Dr Phil.

Okay, here is the plan. You get a girlfriend, and if she feels unsafe walking alone at night, you take her to google and show her that she is statistically more likely to get raped by someone she knows.

If she expresses surprise at those statistics, then you will know that you've put a dress on a mop.

You're theory that the reason women are afraid of being raped by strangers because they aren't aware they are more likely to raped by someone they know is so hilariously deeply flawed.

Also maybe you could not use 'retarded' as a derisive term. You shit eating douche factory.

What I have said, however, and this is if you don't selectively read, is that the statistics speak against women having to constantly fear strange men raping them.

i for one appreciate your attempts to reduce the amount of fear we women have.

so tell me - how can i tell which of the strange men i encounter is likely to try to rape me? how do i know which ones are definitely safe, so i don't have to worry about them?

for that matter - how do i tell which of the strange men i become acquainted with are in fact the ones who will become the 'friends and family' who are most likely to rape me? clearly, there is some definitive sign which will tell me which ones i am right to fear - what is it? it seems so simple to you to tell - so share this secret information with the rest of us!_________________aka: neverscared!

mouse: Honestly? I don't know. Frankly I haven't been saying that there is zero risk for strange men raping women, just that whatever risk Starling concocted in her mind does not square with facts. If she wants to believe it, fine; that's her right. It's also my right to mock it because it's ridiculous. Just like vaxxers, just like Catholic priests believing in the sanctity of an unborn child.

Dennis J. Squidbunny wrote:

You're theory that the reason women are afraid of being raped by strangers because they aren't aware they are more likely to raped by someone they know is so hilariously deeply flawed.

mouse: Honestly? I don't know. Frankly I haven't been saying that there is zero risk for strange men raping women, just that whatever risk Starling concocted in her mind does not square with facts. If she wants to believe it, fine; that's her right. It's also my right to mock it because it's ridiculous. Just like vaxxers, just like Catholic priests believing in the sanctity of an unborn child.

Dennis J. Squidbunny wrote:

You're theory that the reason women are afraid of being raped by strangers because they aren't aware they are more likely to raped by someone they know is so hilariously deeply flawed.

Two things.

1. It's "your."
2. You got it backwards again. Quelle surprise. I don't have a theory, that's not my argument. Learn to read. Here's a hint: you live in an English speaking country. I don't. Get to it.

Guest wrote:

In fact, my argument about putting forth (reliable) information to alleviate the elevated concerns of this woman, has it been anything other than an attempt at sympathy?

Your position on women and feminist issues has gone from confusing, to disagreeable, to problematic, to concerning, to laughable, to ugly, to creepy, to out-and-out disgusting.

You have burned every bridge.

And you have literally no fucking clue why.

You just stand there, amazed, going "jesus why is EVERYONE disagreeing with me AGAIN, what a bunch of IDIOTS who can't READ" and never really picking up on how you long ago just started sounding like a case of the batshit cray-cray wrapped up in a ball with issues with women you will never even begin to unpack without a good shrink and a miraculous breakthrough in which you are actually able to step back and realize how fucking nutty you've gotten.

I'm just in awe of all this. You know that people disagreeing vehemently and near unanimously versus you here on the subject of women is a 100% assured condition. You act like dragonwriter did, in the sense that you are missing that part of your brain that usually teaches you after the first time that using your face to try to put out the catastrophic grease fire of your arguments does not work, hurts, and makes you look hideous. And yet each time there you are hammering yourself skull-first into the flaming cooking range, same as before, cause you don't learn a damn thing.

i am legitimately flabbergasted at how you can take the position "women are irrational to fear being raped by men they don't know because statistically they're so much more likely to be raped by men they do know" and think that by asserting it you are somehow exercising sympathy.

of course, if my gast was legitimately flabbered, you know, from what doctors told me, my body could shut that down.